gation had compiled a photofit image based on his description of the abductor. Hence, Ch.'s later statement that he would be unable to recognise the abductor meant that he could have been subjected to pressure and intimidation. Importantly, during his first interview, Ch. had given the name of the abductor - L. - and it corresponded to the information provided to the applicants by the people who had introduced themselves as FSB officers and who had said that the abductor was L.T. The applicants further stressed that the minor differences, if any, between their own and the witnesses' submissions concerning the abduction were explained by the state of shock experienced by those who witnessed that traumatic event, as well as by the different angles from which each of them had witnessed it. Those minor differences in no way undermined the overall credibility and consistency of their submissions on the most important elements of the sequence of the events. In any event, it had been the task of the investigation to clarify those details and, by blaming the applicants for it, the Government unfairly shifted that task onto them.
86. As regards the alleged withholding of the information from the investigation, the applicants submitted that their interlocutors had warned them that disclosing it could have been dangerous for the applicants. Moreover, the information obtained during the first two contacts was rather general, and once the third applicant had obtained specific information on one of the abductors, on 18 December 2004, he immediately brought it to the attention of the town prosecutor's office, requesting them to verify it. Had the investigation been interested in that information and its source, it could have verified it by seeking access to the records of that phone call.
87. As to the investigation by the domestic authorities, the applicants submitted that it had taken the town prosecutor's office an unjustified amount of time to open the criminal case. For eight days the authorities had been unable to ascertain whether Bashir Mutsolgov had been detained by the FSB and during that period of time they had simply failed to take any action whatsoever. The granting of victim status to the third applicant had also occurred too late, depriving the latter of important procedural rights at that crucial initial stage of the investigation. The authorities had failed to examine and photograph the crime scene and to identify and interview numerous witnesses to the abduction, in particular, the passengers in the two minivans which had collided because of the actions of the abductors, as well as the driver of the second minibus, V.G. The Government's failure to provide copies of the interview records of the witnesses allegedly questioned by the investigation not only made it impossible to assess the quality of those interviews but also raised doubts as to whether they had taken place at all. There were also delays in interviewing the crucial witnesses - according to the Government itself, officer Ch. and witness B.M. were interviewed for the first time only a month after the events.
88. Apart from merely stating that the investigation had verified the possible involvement of the Ingushetiya department of the FSB and L.T. in the abduction and vaguely referring to a reply from that body and an interview with L.T., of which no further details were given, the Government had furnished no evidence that the town prosecutor's office had carried out an independent verification of that information. Although the Government confirmed that L.T. had been an FSB officer serving in Kostroma, they failed to explain how the third applicant had become aware of that information. More importantly, despite the applicants' requests for a confrontation between Ch. and L.T., no such confrontation has been carried out. Moreover, the Government failed to provide an explanation for a one-year delay in
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 27 28 29
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
